We have 'Doctor Who' references on 'Futurama,' but we have a lot of science fiction references that I don't get; but in the staff we have experts on 'Star Trek,' 'Star Wars,' 'Doctor Who' and 'Dungeons and Dragons.'
'Star Trek' is science fiction. 'Star Wars' is science fantasy. Based on the episodes I worked on, I think with 'Star Wars: Clone Wars,' we're starting to see a merging, though. It does deal, philosophically, with some of the issues of the time, which is always something 'Star Trek' was known for.
I read a lot of fantasy and grew up on 'Star Wars' and 'Star Trek.' I loved going to Middle Earth. 'Dungeons & Dragons' was a huge influence.
Star Wars is adolescent nonsense; Close Encounters is obscurist drivel; ‘Star Trek’ can turn your brains into puree of bat guano; and the greatest science fiction series of all time is Doctor Who! And I'll take you all on, one-by-one or all in a bunch to back it up!
I was a big fan of 'Star Trek.' But then again, you know, 'Star Trek', 'Star Wars', 'Doctor Who', I wasn't a big fan, but you know, when they ask you and they cast you and it drops in your lap, how can you say no to these franchises.
I don't consider it jumping ship. The 'Star Trek' philosophy is to embrace the diversity of the universe, and 'Star Wars' is part of that diversity. I also think 'Star Trek' and 'Star Wars' are related beyond both having the word 'Star.'
'Star Wars' is a grand soap opera, and 'Star Trek' is about technology, they tried to explain the reality of it, as far-fetched as it might be. And that's why I've always liked the science behind the fiction.
I'm not so interested any more in how a great deal of science fiction goes. It goes into things like Star Wars and Star Trek which all go excellent in their own way.
I'm from New Orleans, and we have a Mardi Gras group called the Chewbacchus. It's celebrating all things geeky: science fiction, fantasy, 'Star Wars,' 'Doctor Who,' 'Men in Black,' 'Ghostbusters,' everything.
Most of what I do is science fiction. Some of the things I do are fantasy. I don't like the labels, they're marketing tools, and I certainly don't worry about them when I'm writing. They are also inhibiting factors; you wind up not getting read by certain people, or not getting sold to certain people because they think they know what you write. You say science fiction and everybody thinks Star Wars or Star Trek.
Whenever I watch a show and twentysomethings have a lot of 'Star Wars' references, I know it's written by a 40-year-old dude.
I rewatched a lot of 'Star Wars' when I did 'Rogue One,' and the thing I learned was that as a young person, consuming 'Star Wars' at the level that I consumed 'Star Wars,' it kind of molds your visual psyche, so you see the world in 'Star Wars'-ian fashion.
If you're looking at my other major science fiction roles - the Doctor on 'Star Trek' and certainly Woolsey on 'Stargate' - I often play characters that might be good theorists and good thinkers, but you wouldn't call either of them very macho characters.
I was more of a Star Wars kid, actually. I always thought Star Trek was a lot of talk, and it felt a little self-important. It was hard for me to get into it.
While the emphasis on effects became a catastrophe for science fiction, it was a relief for the capitalist culture of which 'Star Wars' became a symbol. Late capitalism can't produce many new ideas any more, but it can reliably deliver technological upgrades. But 'Star Wars' didn't really belong to the science fiction genre any way.
I appreciate both... for me, I think 'Star Wars' is more science fantasy and is based on a lot of great legendary heroes and morality plays and stuff. And 'Star Trek' is just pure fun. Pure science fun. And I've always appreciated both.
I can't deal with the ears in 'Star Trek.' I only saw the first 'Star Wars' movie, and I don't think I saw an entire 'Star Trek' TV show, and I certainly didn't see the movie. I like 'Andy Griffith' and 'Deadwood.'